BI510023RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BI510023RT
MARTHA A. JACOBS RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: AH430089B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 23, 1987 the above named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued August 19, 1987. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 945 West End Avenue, New York,
N.Y. The Administrator denied the tenants' complaint seeking rent
reduction based on the owner's failure to maintain required
services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on August 26, 1986 when the
petitioner herein filed a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in
Building-Wide Services wherein she sought a rent reduction based on
the owner's alleged failure to provide a resident superintendent,
consistent hot water, three full-time employees and trash
collection on a regular basis. The tenant also asserted that the
new windows in the public areas are difficult to open. No other
tenants joined in the complaint.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September
26, 1988 and stated that there is a resident superintendent and
submitted a statement by that individual, that hot water is always
provided except for one and one half days in June when there was a
mechanical failure, that trash is picked up every day and that new
windows were recently installed throughout the building.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on March 5, 1987 and
revealed that hot water was being supplied, that there was no
BI510023RT
resident superintendent, that there is no garbage collection
anymore but a large plastic garbage pail is available on each
floor, that the public halls and stairways were clean and that
replacement windows were installed in the public areas.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on August
10, 1987 and terminated the proceeding based on the report of the
inspector.
On appeal the tenant states that the Administrator's order was
incorrect in that heat and hot water problems reoccur, trash
collection is sporadic, the windows are still not in good repair,
the three employees mentioned in the complaint are still not
working in the building and there is no resident full time
superintendent. With regard to the issue of the superintendent,
the tenant states that the individual in question resides at
another address. The petition was served on the owner on December
3, 1987.
The owner filed a response on December 11, 1987 wherein it
stated, in sum, that the tenant's petition was merely a restatement
of allegations rejected by the agency in other proceedings, that
services are being maintained and that the order here under review
was correctly issued and should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants filed a rent reduction
complaint which was assigned Docket No. AL430057B. In that
proceeding the tenants made similar complaints about the heat and
hot water, superintendent and employees. The Administrator issued
an order on August 31, 1987 wherein the complaint was denied based
on a DHCR inspector's report. The petitioner-tenant herein filed
an administrative appeal of that order. The appeal was assigned
Docket No. BJ410217RT. On February 7, 1991 the Commissioner
remanded the proceeding to the Administrator for further
investigation of the issue of the status of the resident
superintendent only.
On July 1, 1992 the Administrator issued an order bearing
Docket No. FB410026RP. In this order, issued pursuant to the
Commissioner's remand, the Administrator ruled that the complaint
of a full time resident superintendent could not be confirmed from
the evidence in the record. The Administrator affirmed the order
issued in Docket No. AL430057B. The tenants did not file an
administrative appeal from the Administrator's order issued
pursuant to the remand. Therefore, the issue of whether or not the
owner was maintaining this service was determined by the Division
subsequent to the filing of the instant petition and a final order
was issued which is not unappealable herein.
BI510023RT
With regard to the other issues in this proceeding, the
Commissioner notes that the DHCR inspector who investigated the
complaint is neither a party to the proceeding nor an adversary.
The inspector' report is entitled to more probative weight than the
allegations of the petitioner, especially in light of the fact that
the petitioner has offered no evidence to rebut said report. The
order here under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
